Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.[W:325]

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Excellent point! You would be wise to follow it. Now where's that evidence that I seek?

You have to first prove a positive before asking for a negative.

Positive proof in your case would be empirical evidence of human culpability for the current warming phase. Preferably in Peer reviewed format. Here is what they look like

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161)

Proceed ....

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

So what is the theory? And what evidence is it supported by?
If someone says that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, nothing earth shattering there, of course it is.
If someone says that doubling the amount of Co2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will likely
cause an average temperature increase of 1.2°C, no problem, Physics supports the statement.
If on the other hand, someone says, they predict that doubling Co2 will cause an average
temperature increase of 3 to 5 °C, because of the feedback/Forcing which they believe will happen,
but do not support that belief with a theory, I take issue with that.
The fact that the observed data, only shows a minimal increase above the known Co2 response,
only further reduces the credibility, of that belief.

Well said. However, correlation equals causation in the warmer circles.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

So what is the theory? And what evidence is it supported by?
If someone says that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, nothing earth shattering there, of course it is.
If someone says that doubling the amount of Co2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will likely
cause an average temperature increase of 1.2°C, no problem, Physics supports the statement.
If on the other hand, someone says, they predict that doubling Co2 will cause an average
temperature increase of 3 to 5 °C, because of the feedback/Forcing which they believe will happen,
but do not support that belief with a theory, I take issue with that.
The fact that the observed data, only shows a minimal increase above the known Co2 response,
only further reduces the credibility, of that belief.

Let me google that for you

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

You have to first prove a positive before asking for a negative.

Positive proof in your case would be empirical evidence of human culpability for the current warming phase. Preferably in Peer reviewed format. Here is what they look like

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161)

Proceed ....

first off the terms of the argument has to be defined.

for example is your side's arguement trying to show that climate change is not a man made issue, or is it a argument for not studying the issue of climate change?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

It never would since the author of the OP already has his mind made up.

P.S.

I did the graph. Compiled it from peer reviewed work. I've posted it before.

And here come the argumenta ad hominem. Like clockwork.

 

[longview]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Let me google that for you

Please do, and try to find the theory in a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER.
Good luck!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

And here come the argumenta ad hominem. Like clockwork.

LOL...

Would you listen to reason if i presented it?

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

first off the terms of the argument has to be defined.

for example is your side's arguement trying to show that climate change is not a man made issue, or is it a argument for not studying the issue of climate change?

My argument is that today's conditions are well within post glacial natural variability in both level and rate of change as has been illustrated literally dozens of times elsewhere already.

Tagging humanity for today's relatively modest warming is ultimately just about the sequestration of money and power sadly

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Whatever way you slice it, guesswork and opinion are not proof especially when they are increasingly at odds with what is happening in the real world

And what is happening in the real world? Is climate changing? I sure hope so. Are our contributions the only cause? I doubt it. Can we 'fix' it? I'm not sure since we don't even know what it is 'suppose' to be.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

You have to first prove a positive before asking for a negative.

Positive proof in your case would be empirical evidence of human culpability for the current warming phase. Preferably in Peer reviewed format. Here is what they look like

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161)

Proceed ....

Finally, somebody responded with a peer-reviewed study! Thank you.

...but, it was peer-reviewed, right? Right? Surely it could stand up to mild scrutiny such as this? And another Google search revealed that that paper fails even a basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. How can that paper possibly be taken seriously when it doesn't even muster enough quality to pass as a high school science project?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Please do, and try to find the theory in a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER.
Good luck!

Did you even click the link to that wikipedia page? Take a guess at how many sources it contained. Just...a wild guess.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

LOL...

Would you listen to reason if i presented it?

As long as it satisfies the conditions laid out in the OP, by all means.

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Finally, somebody responded with a peer-reviewed study! Thank you.

...but, it was peer-reviewed, right? Right? Surely it could stand up to mild scrutiny such as this? And another Google search revealed that that paper fails even a basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. How can that paper possibly be taken seriously when it doesn't even muster enough quality to pass as a high school science project?

Yes its Peer reviewed and has survived many attempted rebuttals of it too

You do realise that alarmist blogger John Cook at skeptical science is actually a cartoonist and not a scientist of any description right ? :lol:

 

[TML]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Just thinking… forgive me if it isn’t to par with your assigned rules.
The interesting thing to me is; the historical record shows the earth has been warming ever since the little ice age and current models show average temperatures at their zenith in respect to previous peaks in global temperature averaging every 125,000 years. The record also shows that CO2 levels follow rather than lead global temperatures so we would expect a natural increase in greenhouse gases. We know the earth is warming, and possibly at its zenith before entering a cooling phase (although the Holocene period was hotter). AGW necessarily claims that this warming is due explicitly to human activity (industrialization) – that for the first time in the historical record CO2 is driving climate change rather than following climate change, and as far as I can tell, there is no definitive proof of this claim. Therefore this does not shift the burden of proof, but leaves it directly upon those making the claim. And since this thread seems largely an appeal to authority by consensus of unnamed scientists; remember to give this prominent climate scientist his due respect.

“John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

In 1989 Christy and Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.
John Christy has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Christy is a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”

The catastrophic conditions are further questioned by reports from the University of Victoria that it would take “10 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, than burning all of Earth’s fossil fuels—every bit of coal, oil and gas that exists—would actually produce”, so…. Where is the problem considering that even during the Holocene period there wasn’t any “problem”? Why the scare from alarmists and the passionate desire to contend that people are the result of global climate change? Carbon tax…. ? And how would that tax save the world…?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Yes its Peer reviewed and has survived many attempted rebuttals of it too

You do realise that blogger John Cook at skeptical science is a cartoonist right ?

and what discredits john cook from being a credibal source? just because he is a cartoonist?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Yes its Peer reviewed and has survived many attempted rebuttals of it too

You do realise that blogger John Cook at skeptical science is a cartoonist right ?

Burden of proof, son. If a simple blog entry can point out the hideous flaws in that pseudoskeptic's study, I hate to think what a peer-reviewed, scientific study can do.

EDIT: HA! Like this. The abstract is the only publicly available component, but trust me, it's more than enough. This is some of the strongest language you'll EVER see in a research paper abstract.

 

[Thom Paine]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

If so many climate scientists are supposedly influenced by political agendas, then the evidence should bear it out. So let's see that evidence. Now.

Specifically, here is what I am looking for: You find a peer-reviewed study published in the last ten years that supports the theory of anthropogenic climate change and proceed to debunk it. But here is the catch: Only peer-reviewed scientific research papers shall be admitted as evidence. Also, the more recent it is, the better; the older, the worse. Hint: You don't have to limit yourself to American-based studies; climate science is studied globally. Note that if you believe that if an climate change science is just a political ploy or a conspiracy, then this allows you access to other sources of information that are not allegedly tainted.

Since I know some people struggle with reading comprehension, let me repeat something I said earlier: ANYTHING other than a PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER quality work is UNCONDITIONALLY INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE. I don't care how much you think it falsifies the theory: Inferior sources have no place in a scientific discussion. So I don't wanna see any news stories, blogs, conspiracy theories, sob stories from current or former scientists who didn't get their studies accepted, etc. You wanna take on science? Then use science. If you see anything in the study or studies that you select that you believe to be wrong, you MUST use SCIENTIFIC methods to falsify the claim. This means you must produce a refutation that is worthy of harsh peer review. Furthermore, you should EXPECT that harsh peer review to happen. You must thoroughly cite your sources and back up your claims according to graduate-level research standards.

Even if you somehow pass all that, there is one more test your attack must survive: It must clearly imply that the anthropogenic climate change theory is completely wrong, or at the very least, highly questionable. MERELY POINTING OUT THAT THE STUDY HAS ERRORS OR FLAWS IS INSUFFICIENT to your case. You must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this well-established science is likely just a smokescreen.

Good luck! I'll be waiting...and something tells me, for quite some time.

It's your hypothesis ... you prove it correct using scientific methodology... ( which happens t be where the hypothesis fails )

Good day 251

Thom Paine

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

and what discredits john cook from being a credibal source? just because he is a cartoonist?

Are you serious ? :shock:

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Just thinking… forgive me if it isn’t to par with your assigned rules.
The interesting thing to me is; the historical record shows the earth has been warming ever since the little ice age and current models show average temperatures at their zenith in respect to previous peaks in global temperature averaging every 125,000 years. The record also shows that CO2 levels follow rather than lead global temperatures so we would expect a natural increase in greenhouse gases. We know the earth is warming, and possibly at its zenith before entering a cooling phase (although the Holocene period was hotter). AGW necessarily claims that this warming is due explicitly to human activity (industrialization) – that for the first time in the historical record CO2 is driving climate change rather than following climate change, and as far as I can tell, there is no definitive proof of this claim. Therefore this does not shift the burden of proof, but leaves it directly upon those making the claim. And since this thread seems largely an appeal to authority by consensus of unnamed scientists; remember to give this prominent climate scientist his due respect.

“John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

In 1989 Christy and Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.
John Christy has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Christy is a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”

The catastrophic conditions are further questioned by reports from the University of Victoria that it would take “10 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, than burning all of Earth’s fossil fuels—every bit of coal, oil and gas that exists—would actually produce”, so…. Where is the problem considering that even during the Holocene period there wasn’t any “problem”? Why the scare from alarmists and the passionate desire to contend that people are the result of global climate change? Carbon tax…. ? And how would that tax save the world…?

"What Catastrophe?"

...

"Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”

Lindzen says not much at all—and he contends that the “alarmists” vastly overstate the Earth’s climate sensitivity. Judging by where we are now, he appears to have a point; so far, 150 years of burning fossil fuels in large quantities has had a relatively minimal effect on the climate. By some measurements, there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the past 15 million years. Yet since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the average global temperature has risen by, at most, 1 degree Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. And while it’s true that sea levels have risen over the same period, it’s believed they’ve been doing so for roughly 20,000 years. What’s more, despite common misconceptions stoked by the media in the wake of Katrina, Sandy, and the recent typhoon in the Philippines, even the IPCC concedes that it has “low confidence” that there has been any measurable uptick in storm intensity thanks to human activity. Moreover, over the past 15 years, as man has emitted record levels of carbon dioxide year after year, the warming trend of previous decades has stopped. Lindzen says this is all consistent with what he holds responsible for climate change: a small bit of man-made impact and a whole lot of natural variability."

What Catastrophe? | The Weekly Standard

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

and what discredits john cook from being a credibal source? just because he is a cartoonist?

Yes. You need to be at least a former Vice President to have any credibility on the subject!

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Are you serious ? :shock:

if a cartoonist has a understanding of climate science does his job deny him credibility or a chance to have a say?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

It's your hypothesis ... you prove it correct using scientific methodology... ( which happens t be where the hypothesis fails )

Good day 251

Thom Paine

Nope. I've already addressed the burden-of-proof issue in post 39 and the scientifically-based theory of AGW in post 53. Feel free to address these concerns...I've been waiting for awhile now.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Nope. I've already addressed the burden-of-proof issue in post 39 and the scientifically-based theory of AGW in post 53. Feel free to address these concerns...I've been waiting for awhile now.

Are there any deniers here?

Who are they?

 

[Phys251]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

Just thinking… forgive me if it isn’t to par with your assigned rules.
The interesting thing to me is; the historical record shows the earth has been warming ever since the little ice age and current models show average temperatures at their zenith in respect to previous peaks in global temperature averaging every 125,000 years. The record also shows that CO2 levels follow rather than lead global temperatures so we would expect a natural increase in greenhouse gases. We know the earth is warming, and possibly at its zenith before entering a cooling phase (although the Holocene period was hotter). AGW necessarily claims that this warming is due explicitly to human activity (industrialization) – that for the first time in the historical record CO2 is driving climate change rather than following climate change, and as far as I can tell, there is no definitive proof of this claim. Therefore this does not shift the burden of proof, but leaves it directly upon those making the claim. And since this thread seems largely an appeal to authority by consensus of unnamed scientists; remember to give this prominent climate scientist his due respect.

The claim that global CO2 levels have no effect on global temperatures has been falsified many, many, many times over.

“John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

In 1989 Christy and Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.
John Christy has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Christy is a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”

The catastrophic conditions are further questioned by reports from the University of Victoria that it would take “10 times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, than burning all of Earth’s fossil fuels—every bit of coal, oil and gas that exists—would actually produce”, so…. Where is the problem considering that even during the Holocene period there wasn’t any “problem”? Why the scare from alarmists and the passionate desire to contend that people are the result of global climate change? Carbon tax…. ? And how would that tax save the world…?

OK you've alluded to his studies--which one do you want to take a look at?

 

[flogger]

Re: Dear climate change science deniers: Show me the facts.

if a cartoonist has a understanding of climate science does his job deny him credibility or a chance to have a say?

Hmmm let me think . Yes I think it probably would for most objective people !